Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rock Hill Galleria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn. ELIMINATORJR 23:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rock Hill Galleria

Rock Hill Galleria (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable shopping mall, fails WP:RS. Article was tagged for notability early on but tag was removed on the editor's premise that all malls are notable. Only changes over time have been shift in ownership (from General Growth to Jones Lang LaSalle) and my personal discovery that the mall once had a Phar-Mor. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 02:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC) I withdraw my nomination, but can't close per WP:DPR#NAC. The sources provided are enough to expand the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 16:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, nothing notable about this mall at all. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 02:38, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. I think I've driven past it and haven't even noticed. Article has no substance either, and violates WP:NOT (directory). Zchris87v 07:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Arguments says "I never noticed it " are not valid reason for deletion. Having multiple substantial coverage in independent and reliables sources satisfies WP:N. Regional mall with 692,367 sq ft of gross leasable area per official site (some articles say 471,000, perhaps excluding freestanding store on property). Typical news coverage can be found at Google News. Developer plans mall, 1989 [1] , planners ok it 1989 [2] ,construction begins 1990 [3] ,construction continues 1990 [4] , Grand opening 1991,[5] , [6] , Santa fired for being female 1992 [7] , expansion in 1994 [8] ,debate over smoking ban 1995 [9] , stores can't open until 1:30 pm on Sunday because of "blue laws 2000 [10] , burglary 2001 [11] , new owners learning local market 2003 [12] , Sears remodeled 2003 [13] , shoppers consider it "lame" and needing revitalization 2004 [14] , new owner 2004 [15] ,Makeover 2004[16] , manager refuses to allow Salvation Army to set up kettles and ring bells, 2005 [17]. Owners plan more renovation to counteract "struggling and stale" image 2005 [18] . More deserving than some which have been kept. less notable than others. Edison 17:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - "I have never noticed" was not my entire argument; as mentioned, it violates the policy that wikipedia is not a directory. Zchris87v 03:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep regional size and extensive sources available (as above) bespeak notability. Alansohn 21:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom not notable.Harlowraman 06:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, unless someone can give a convincing argument as to why all those sources should be ignored. Ichormosquito 06:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The result was No consensus, withdrawn nomination. I'm closing this as a "no consensus", seeeing as a.) I withdraw my nomination, and b.) there have been delete votes so I can't close it as a keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 10:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I have overturned the above closure per WP:DPR#NAC. Editors must not close AfD in which they have participated. Sandstein 11:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article as written is not notable. It is up to the editors to improve the article by meeting WP:V and WP:RS. If the article fails then it needs to be deleted. Vegaswikian 05:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.